Thriving After Homelessness: A Concept Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Homelessness is a global challenge affecting both high-income and lower-income countries. While survival is a priority, when assessing rehousing programs, thriving should be a goal. There is, however, a lack of clarity around the concept of thriving in existing literature, as for example it is used interchangeably across a number of professions. Aim: This paper provides an in-depth concept analysis of thriving, with a specific focus on thriving post-homelessness. Method: Walker and Avant’s (2011) concept analysis method was utilized. Results: As a result of this concept analysis, eight defining attributes were identified, including bio-psycho-social-spiritual improvement, adaptive coping styles, a sense of accomplishment, satisfaction across multiple life domains, functional well-being, improving or achieving a high level of performance, finding meaning in life or life activities, and having the necessities of daily living. It was found that thriving is a multidimensional process with subjective and objective components as well as an outcome, which all contribute to an individual's well-being and satisfaction. As a consequence of thriving, one feels more secure and confident and an enhanced sense of belonging. Conclusion: This concept analysis includes an updated definition of an individual's thriving post-homelessness in order to allow for comprehensive measurement in the context of housing research, including a positive assessment of one's life situation across multiple domains, as well as access to basic necessities such as shelter, food, and clothing. Future research can utilize the results of this concept analysis to explore thriving within the context of housing, especially to establish a well-structured housing program for persons exiting homelessness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".